Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

you might want to check your own i didn't think alarmists sites were considered valid but i guess if it agrees with you then alarmists sites are perfectly fine.

while i didn't know real climate scientists and nasa engineers weren't good sources. if that is the case then your sources are even worse since your sources maniplutate data, lie, and all around try to stifle any opposition to their political agenda.

what is worse your main source the IPCC isn't even run by a climatologist. it is run by an industrial engineer and a economist. who by chance is heavily invested in green carbon trading companies.

yep no conflict of interest there.

who also by the way was busted for not using peer reviewed papers in a report.

i think you need to clean your sources up a bit before critizing someone elses.

On the overwhelming whole real climate scientists and NASA support AGW. You use sources that 1) outright lie about the numbers of dissent, 2) mislead by cherry picking, 3) try to make a fringe few seem like a lot.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

No, again, you neither know what the fallacy is nor the science on the subject.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

This is the only part of what you said that has value in measuring any type of consensus,
because organizations, do not count as individuals.
"agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"
What are they agreeing to?
Are they agreeing to the full range of catastrophic predictions by the IPCC?
We do not know, because they did not ask that question!
Are they maybe agreeing to the idea that feedback from CO2's direct response,
will cause catastrophic warming?
We do not know, because they did not ask that question!
Ah, Maybe they are agreeing CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has a warming curve,
that is accepted by Physics?
But that could not be it, that amount of warming is not alarming.
I actually agree that some of the warming over the past century
is very likely due to human activity.
So the consensus, is quite vague, vague enough to include
anyone who understands Science, including myself.
So how can I be skeptical of the catastrophic predictions, and yet be part of the consensus?

This drives home, something I have discussed before,
There are two separate concepts within the idea known as AGW.
The first is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and likely causes some warming.
The second concept, is that combinations of feedbacks, will cause catastrophic warming,
beyond the accepted direct response of CO2.
The consensus idea, would lead one to believe, anyone who accepts the first part,
automatically accepts the second, but they are completely different.
The direct response was known and measured, before we had Quantum to understand what was going on.
The second part has never been quantified, and may not even exists.

The instrument record reflects what I am saying.
If you accept the IPCC's number for the direct response of CO2 (1.2 C for each doubling),
then there is only .2 C of the .8 C in the last 133 years that could be attributed to
all other effects known and unknown.

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."Climate Change: Causes
Global Warming Science and Impacts
The causes and consequences of rising global temperatures

The effects of rising temperatures are already being felt across the United States and around the world, with serious implications for our health, our environment, and our economy.

Dangerous heat waves are increasing in frequency. Sea level rise is accelerating. Coastal flooding risks are growing. Extreme storms are on the rise in some areas. More severe droughts are occurring in others.

The science is clear. Global warming is happening — and we are the primary cause.

I'm sorry, but I can't find anything from the scientific community supporting you claim. You side uses conservative business magazines, fake science groups, charts without scientific explanation, or paid hacks. These just can't be counted as equal to the mainstream scientific community.

Last edited by Boo Radley; 05-20-14 at 12:42 PM.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

No, again, you neither know what the fallacy is nor the science on the subject.

I don't considered your sources reliable or experts so therefore the appeal to authority works.
i consider them alarmists pushing a political agenda and the term "science" doesn't even cross their desk.

they have been caught time and time again distorting and covering up real facts and manipulating data to continue to push their cause.
they have been cited for using non-peer reviewed papers.

I don't considered your sources reliable or experts so therefore the appeal to authority works.
i consider them alarmists pushing a political agenda and the term "science" doesn't even cross their desk.

they have been caught time and time again distorting and covering up real facts and manipulating data to continue to push their cause.
they have been cited for using non-peer reviewed papers.

all their theories rely on shotty models that are being misused and have major errors. they cannot hope to get an accurate picture of what is going on because the models they have created are WRONG.

therefore any analysis coming from those models are WRONG.

Your first article is about representation, and the second one is a decade old. Not anything that is relevant to this conversation.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

The science is clear. Global warming is happening — and we are the primary cause.

I'm sorry, but I can't find anything from the scientific community supporting you claim. You side uses conservative business magazines, fake science groups, charts without scientific explanation, or paid hacks. These just can't be counted as equal to the mainstream scientific community.

Since the Science is clear, what portion of the observed CO2 increase, is directly
attributable to human activity?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and has an accepted direct response, no argument there.
The IPCC's number for the CO2's direct response is 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2,
Per Baede et al, cited as the key concept in AGW. (not alarming)
If we accept the IPCC's direct response #, then .6 C of the observed .8 C
in the last 133 years is directly attributable to the increase in CO2.
So the question becomes what part of the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm,
is a result of Human activity?
For the sake of this discussion, let's say 100% of the increase in CO2 is Human.
(4*log(560)) -(4*log(400))= 10.9927-10.4082=.5845 C remaining.
So 1.2 C-.5845 C= .6155 C
Feel free to check my math, the 4 log curve was a crude fit,
So of the .8 C observed, the direct response of CO2 accounts for .6155 C.
This leaves only .184 C, for all variables in the last 133 years.
If there is any additional forcing as predicted, it must be hiding in that .184C.
For those who a graphically oriented, I checked my work with an excel graph.CO2_response.jpg

I'm sorry, but I can't find anything from the scientific community supporting you claim. You side uses conservative business magazines, fake science groups, charts without scientific explanation, or paid hacks. These just can't be counted as equal to the mainstream scientific community.

I try and do my own work to see if the predictions are plausible.
I feel about other Scientist the same way I feel about fisherman.
"All the fisherman in the world are liars, except for you and I,
and I have my doubts about you."

I try and do my own work to see if the predictions are plausible.
I feel about other Scientist the same way I feel about fisherman.
"All the fisherman in the world are liars, except for you and I,
and I have my doubts about you."

The trouble is neither of us are scientists. We don't know what we don't no. I've tried to communicate this to you. No matter what you figure, we don't know what we don't know. No matter how you feel about scientists, they're not idiots. So, you need something better than they're either stupid or in conspiracy.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

The trouble is neither of us are scientists. We don't know what we don't no. I've tried to communicate this to you. No matter what you figure, we don't know what we don't know. No matter how you feel about scientists, they're not idiots. So, you need something better than they're either stupid or in conspiracy.

The fisherman comment is a bit of sarcasm, related to checking peoples work.
I have worked professionally as a principle investigator, on may research efforts,
mostly physics and optics.
What you keep dodging, is that their numbers do not add up for the mid to high range
of their predictions.
True, that we cannot possible know what all the variables are,
but the direct response for CO2 is a known variable, that when accounted for
does not leave much room for the additional forcing, necessary for the catastrophic
warnings of AGW to be valid.
In post #637, I showed you the math and the graphical representation of the math,
to validate what I am saying.
As I said, please check my math, if my calculations are incorrect, point it out.
I have no issues finding out I am wrong about something.